Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-21 Department Review SPR DISTRICT/ '!S OFFICE 405 MAPLE STREET, OANVERS 01023 January 5, I98:p Mr. Scott A. Stocking Building Inspector Town Hall North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Dear Mr. Stocking: The 1988 Transportation Bond ,Issue contained a section which clarifies and strengthens the Massachusetts Department of Public Works Curb Cut Statute. Perhaps the most important change made by the 1988 Amendment is to clarify that a - u 'change""in ' se'-of�'an' existing ' curb• cut"; ford' evelopmEn-t's?�h3 h °gefidikt ,-1,substantial..`increase in -oi"'impact on traf f is. � Furthermore, a development abutting the state highway that uses an adjacent local -street to access the state highway, instead of -a driveway directly.. onto the state highway may still have a substantial impact on the highway. Therefore, ra`"curb 'cuC_7 e mi s' 1t5 ua�zed'^rfbx""maj�r�"'hew"or#-expanded•-devel.opments abutting a state high=3 . MwH&f1 a M.. br� ot�Tthe!n-driveway.-tLctually'*enters the state• highwayo In summary the amendment "o`W- he-DepartmentI"t6':=regula,t;. nd .require appropriate traffic mitigation - ..,.. �W,OEU 'de,,e.7�vpne its-,.on"y'-State.:highways which will have a substantial traffic 'impact. �. t. , Therefore, VN.M.K-s}'?!requi7ee+i that your building inspector'� planning board or zoning board orm1�, e li.strict Tp i f era bl.y in"wrTting -.of applications- for building .permits n_ uing "ets?:granti's'daTvngstate'Yi3ghways:" This request has become necessary since many developers have performed work without obtaining the proper permits. I am also requesting that your planning board make the developers aware of this curb cut policy. If you have any questions regarding the amendments to the Curb Cut Statute please feel free to contact Mr. Fred Harney the District Permit Engineer. Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated . Very truly yours, .. David J. Wilson District Highway Engineer r/ m S f f 1 1 r ` MEMORANDUM To: Kathy McKenna, Planning Director From: Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Date: December 12, 2002 Re: Pico Realty Trust MRI Tenant Fit-up 530 Turnpike Street I have reviewed the parking plan for the referenced facility and have the following comments: Pursuant to Parking Section.8.1.0f the Zoning;By-law the 10,015 square feet M Medical facility shall require ------------------- 33 spaces Employee ar shall require spaces parking __..________________ 12 aces The remaining 3,305 square feet must be conditioned as"Office Space" use ONLY shall require ------------------- 11 spaces The existing 2-story Office Building occupies 18,768 square feet and shall require ------------�� 63 spaces Required 119 spaces Proposed 117 spaces Short 002 spaces Handi-Cap Parkin : None Five(5)Handi-cap spaces are required as per CMR 521,one(1)of which shall be Van Accessible.Enclosed is the parking lay out as required by CMR 521 the Architectural Barrier Board. The front-grassed areas along Route 114 have fifteen(15)parking spaces cut into them,and I am of the opinion that the applicant must petition the Board of Appeals for this right. I also am of the opinion that the twenty feet wide driveway to the right of the building is pre- existing the current twenty-five feet wide regulation in the current zoning by-law and may remain m the current dimension. MEMORANDUM To: Kathy McKenna, Planning Director From: Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Date: December 12, 2002 Re: Pico Realty Trust MRI Tenant Fit-up 530 Turnpike Street I have reviewed the parking plan for the referenced facility and have the following comments: Pursuant to Parking Section 8.1 of the Zoning By-law the 10,015 square feet MRI Medical facility shall require ------------------- 33 spaces Employee parking shall require ------------------- 12 spaces The remaining 3,305 square feet must be conditioned as"Office Space, use ONLY shall require ------------------- I 1 spaces The existing 2-story Office Building occupies 18,768 square feet and shall require ------------------- 63 spaces, Required 119 spaces Proposed 117 spaces Short 002 spaces Handi-Cap Parkin: None Five(5)Handi-cap spaces are required as per CMR 521, one(1)of which shall be Van Accessible.Enclosed is the parking lay out as required by CMR 521 the Architectural Barrier Board. The front-grassed areas along Route 114 have fifteen(15)parking spaces cut into them and I am of the opinion that the applicant must petition the Board of Appeals for this right. I also am of the opinion that the twenty feet wide driveway to the right of the building is pre- existing the current twenty-five feet wide regulation in the current zoning by-law and may remain in the current dimension. rage 1 012, Nicetta, Robert From: Nicetta, Robert Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:01 PM To: Nicetta, Robert Subject: RE. 530 Turnpike Street- Parking Determination Heidi)- I have placed in your box a copy of my decision on the closing of Rea's Pit. Bill Sullivan has pproved the dicision and will put same In writing on Monday the 23rd. The pit due to this action will be officially closed and the development process will be able to continue. ---Original Message----- From: Nicetta, Robert Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:44 PM To: Griffin, Heidi . Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: RE'. 530 Turnpike Street-Parking Determination I gave a memo to Kathy McKenna with a parking analysis on December 12, 2002..However, this morning I received a new site plan with a Architect's parking calculations and a new elevation plan. I will now have to perform anew Zoning Site Plan Review. A quick glance of the new plan reveals many ZBA variances are required and that the Fire Department and Disability Commission will have to j be consulted. The number of proposed parking spaces,without actual count, appears to have doubled. I am of the opinion that the ZBA will also require a traffic study at the site. In any event, the 1988 Transportation Bond Bill requires that the Mass Highway Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit review the impact of vehicles entering the highway. There are other issues that must be addressed with the change in plan. As next week is short due to Christmas I suggest the Planning Board continue the hearing until a complete review and required variances and comments from other parties have been received. I will also place a copy of this response w e ce Dember 12th memo in your box. -----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Held! Sent:Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:35 PM To: Nicetta, Robert Cc: McGuire, Mike Subject: 530 Turnpike Street- Parking Determination Hi Bob: In reviewing the upcoming Planning Board meeting with Kathy today (as I will be covering the meeting in her absence on January 7tr') it was relayed to me that 530 Turnpike Street does not have a written parking determination as to its proposed MRI use and its conformance with zoning. I'm not sure whether you and/or Mike are performing this zoning review, however if the applicant needs to go to the zoning board of appeals for a variance, etc. he will need a written review explaining why. If you could please copy me on the memo I would appreciate it. Kathy seemed to think she needed to inform the applicant if he required a variance and I explained that was not her jurisdiction and a memo must come from your office as to conformance with parking and/or zoning. Also, can you please do me a favor- I noticed on the Peachtree Subdivision there was the old gravel pit there- I just want to make sure they do not require an earth removal permit from the ZBA. Can you please advise? 12/26/02 DArs DA GOST ; A T T 0 R N E Y 5 A T L A W Howard F. Speicher Julian J.D'Agostine C.Michael Malm f4nuary 7, 2003 William F.Griffin,Jr. Robert C.Gerrard John VIA FACSIMILE 978 688.9556 and First Class Mail S.Matsk° Serino D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner Gary ' Judith Ashton North Andover.Building Department John T.Lynch 27 Charles Street Carol R.when North Andover, MA 01845 Howard P.Speicher Re: 530 Turnpike Street Paul L.Feldman Gary M.Feldman Dear Commissioner Nicetta: George A.Hewett Laurence M.Johnson T just received a copy of your denial of the building permit application'for the 'Kenneth J.-Mickiewicz partial renovation and change of use for 530 Turnpike Street. As the issuance Thomas S.Fitzpatrick of a building permit is a matter of great urgency to the owner and the tenant, I Whitton E Norris,lli would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the denial with you, and to ask you 1.0a'-v`'Cockfield to reconsider your decision denying the application, with possibly some. Arrdewb:Myers modifications to the application, discussed below. Robert].Galvin Your denial was based on issues related entirely to parking, which were John D.Chambliss detailed in eight numbered paragraphs, each of which is addressed below. Thomas Frisardi Robert J.Diettrich 1. "The applicant indicates 25 spaces in a parking easement." Section 8.1 Amy L.Fracassini of the Zoning Bylaw allows required off-street parking to be located, on Ann M.Sobolewski the same lot with such building or on a lot contiguous thereto. . ." The 2.5 Siobhan Sweeney spaces are proposed on contiguous property as provided by the Bylaw. We Alice A.Kokodis will be happy to show you a copy of the easement authorizing such parking. Emily H.Fournier Kathryn 1.Connors 2. "Medical Office UsefUses, with unknown number of employees." We Joshua S.Grossman will provide you with the number of employees. Neal).Bingham 3. "An application indicating multiple possible uses." You correctly note Dariytt S.Tnwsley that the proposed medical use will not occupy the entire building. There is not Harold R Davis, Of Counsel direct 617-589-3829 directfax 617-305-3129 email hspcicher@davismalrn.com ONE Bos N!MACE#BosmN r MA r 02108 617,367•2500 # fax 617.523.6215 w w w . d a v i s in a l ni . c o in C D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner DAvis MALL CY January 7, 2003 DAGOSTINE PC. Page 2 yet a proposed tenant for the rest of the building, however, this does not require denial of the application. Otherwise, it would never be possible to occupy a building with vacant space. There are two possible solutions to this problem, both of which are in conformity with the requirements of the Bylaw: A. Section 8.1.2 of the Bylaw provides for this situation as follows: "Where a use is not indicated prior to construction or issuance of building permit, the number of parking spaces provided shall be the maximum required." Utilizing this provision for the unoccupied portions of the building, you can assume a use for the rest of the building requiring the maximum number of parking'spaces, such.as retail for th„'.balance of the building. Using this-method, and as is shown on the plans already submitted to you, we believe the parking space requirement for the property, even assuming a maximum requirement for the presently unoccupied space, is 127. The plan provides for 129 spaces. B. There is no requirement that a certificate of occupancy cover the entire building. In fact, it is typical with office building buildouts to issue certificates of occupancy for each floor or tenant space as it becomes-occupied. We propose that the present application be treated as applying only to the space proposed to be occupied, with respect to determining parking space requirements as well as with respect to the space itself. Accordingly, only the number of parking spaces required for the presently proposed use would be calculated. When an additional tenant or tenants are proposed, and a new buildout for the additional space is applied for, the additional parking space requirement can be calculated. If variances or other relief are required at that time, they can be applied for then. This could be enforced by issuing a certificate of occupancy limited to the parts of the building to be tenanted under the present application. 4. "A variance is required pursuant to Section 8.1, Paragraph 7; an unobstructed driveway of 25 feet wide." This driveway is a pre-existing lawfully nonconforming condition that has been in place for aver thirty years. Therefore,no.variance should.be required. 5. Variance for penetration of parking setback from Route 114, citing Table 2, Footnote 1. Under the present application, you are correct that a variance would be required for adding additional parking spaces in this area, although we note that most of the parking spaces in this area are existing and are therefore grandfathered. However, we propose that under 3.B, proposed above, we would not need these additional parking spaces, and could delay building these additional parking spaces and applying for a variance until such time as we have identified additional tenants. CY D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner. DAIs �L January 7, 2003DAGOSTINE PC. Page 3 6. "The parking plan does not-indicate `snow dumps"'. Again, under 3.13, above, there would be significant excess parking until an additional tenant is identified, so there would be no need for designated snow removal areas. However, we will, if you deem it necessary, provide you with a plan showing snow storage areas, and a snow removal plan. 7. Traffic study required because of 1988 Transportation Bond Bill. I am unfamiliar with this requirement, and do not believe that a traffic study is required under any provision of the Zoning Bylaw under these circumstances. It is possible that you are referring to Massachusetts Highway Department requirements that.might.apply in the event we were to request a new curb cut onto Route 114, but that is not the case here; since we are utiilzing.the existing driveway and curb cut. We respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in this regard. 8. Section 8.1, Paragraph 5, requiring application to ZBA. This provision applies only to situations where, "the Building Inspector is unable to identify a use with one (1) or more of the uses" listed in the parking schedule in Section 8.1. If the proposed use is not adequately described on the table in Section 8.1, and the building inspector consequently cannot determine the parking requirement. This section does not apply here. We have clearly applied for a use that is explicitly listed in the table as "Medical Offices". As fof the rest of the building, we have addressed that issue in paragraphs 3.A and 3.B, above. I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this matter with you, either by telephone or in person. If some modifications are required to the plan or the application so that it would conform to your understanding of what could be issued without going to the ZBA, we would be happy to make such changes promptly. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, as this is a matter of great urgency to both Mr. McGarry and the proposed tenant. Very truly yours, `146ward f':Speicher cc: John McGarry, Esq. (via facsimile) JMPMCHERWcGwTyl530 TurnpikeVYW teasMicetta 01-07- 03.doe Professional Memo Page 1 of 1 I i Nicetta, Robert From: Melnikas, Lt. Andrew Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:01 AM To: Nicetta, Robert; Dolan, Chief William Subject: Pico Realty Trust MeNorth Andover Fire Toe Robert Nicetta , Building Commissioner Amm Lt. Andrew Melnikas M Dial= January 9, 2003 R7ee Pico Realty Trust , 530 Turnpike st The North Andover Fire department has reviewed the proposed plans for this site and has the following recommendations: 1. The width needed for the emergency apparatus is at the least 12 feet. The proposed width for the side of the building facing F'uddrucker's is 13.5 feet. Our concerns are that this will not be the case because of parking, snow, etc. Also we need a turning radius of a minimum of 25 feet .This is measured essentially from the comer of the building . Please call should there be any questions. Lt. Andrew Melnikas Fire Prevention Officer 1/9/03 Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert To: Griffin, Heidi Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: RE: 530 Turnpike Street Heidi -- I have just concluded a meeting with Atty. Howard Speicher who is representing John McGarry (Pico Realty Trust)on 530 Tumpike Street. I have attached Item#1 which explains with the parking analysis for the original site plan submitted by Pica to the Planning Board. Item#2 is a memo to you explaining what I believed would be required Wth the new site plan as submitted by Pico on Dec. 20, 2002. Item#3 is a memo from Lt. Melnikas with recommendations on the Dec. 20 site plan. Item#4 is a memo from Police Lt. John Carney with recommendations on the Dec.20 site plan. Item#5 is a copy of the 1988 Amendment to the 1988 Transportation Bond Issue. Lastly is a copy of the Denial which was also forwarded to the Planning Board. Atty. Speicher was quite surprised to team that Pico had submitted the original site plan on December 5, 2002 and a new and different one on Dec, 20, 2002. The Attorney made mention that he wnuld be making application to the ZBA for the next meeting which is in February for required Variances. If you require anything else please let me know.. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Heidi Sent:Tuesday,January 14, 2003 11:44 AM To: Nicetta, Robert Subject: 530 Turnpike Street Bob, please provide Heidi with a copy of your written denials(s)on the 530 Turnpike Street project and/or written memorandum outlining what they need to comply with zoning. Heidi will need this by the end of the work day today. Thanks DMD -Tfe CU'Gr64'V Community Development & Services Director 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 (978)688-9531 (978)688-9542 fax 1/14N3 . � � r Sam wMaw- MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector FROM: Lt. John Carney DATE: January 14, 2003 SUBJECT: The MR1 Center, 530 Turnpike Street CC: Richard M. Stanley, Chief ofPolice I have reviewed the plans and done a site visit to 530 Turnpike Street, the site of the proposed AM Center. We have concerns about the impact the increased traffic volume may have on Rt. 114. The specific Concern is exiting left out of the complex from the driveway located closest to Royal Crest. EWwers exiting there would be crossing two lanes of traffic fairly close to the intersection with no controls present. Most accidents on Rt. 114 involve a driver executing a left turn. It is the recommendation of the Police Department that a traffic impact study be performed to determine what the effect will be on the traffic pattern and make safety improvement recommendations. We also have concerns about the number of parking spaces available to these two buildings. However, I understand that issue is already being addressed. Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert To: Griffin, Heidi Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae Subject: RE: 530 Tumpike Street Heidi -- I have just concluded a meeting with Atty. Howard Speicher who is representing John McGarry (Pico Realty Trust)on 530 Tumpike Street. I have attached Item#1 which explains with the parking analysis for the original site plan submitted by Pico to the Planning Board. Item#2 is a memo to you explaining what I believed would be required with the new site plan as submitted by Pico on Dec. 20, 2002. Item#3 is a memo from Lt. Melnikas with recommendations on the Dec. 20 site plan. Item#4 is a memo from Police Lt. John Carney with recommendations on the Dec.20 site plan. Item#5 is a copy of the 1988 Amendment to the 1988 Transportation Bond Issue. Lastly is a copy of the Denial which was also forwarded to the Planning Board. Atty. Speicher was quite surprised to team that Pico had submitted the original site plan on December 5, 2002 and a new and different one on Dec. 20, 2002. The Attomey made mention that he would be making application to the ZBA for the next meeting which Is in February for required Variances. If you require anything else please let me know.. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Griffin, Heidi Sent::Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:44 AM To: Nicetta, Robert Subject: 530 Tumpike Street Bob, please provide Heidi with a copy of your written denials(s)on the 530 Tumpike Street project and/or written memorandum outlining what they need to comply with zoning. Heidi will need this by the end of the work day today. Thanks DMD 1iec.dGGYiff4v Community Development & Services Director 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 (978)688-9531 (978)688-9542 fax 1/1E4/03 JOHN F. MCGARRY 401 ANDOVER STREET NO.ANDOVER, MA 01845 978-686-1111 Fax 978-685-7878 March 16, 2004 Ms. Julie Parrino North Andover Town Planner 27 Charles St. North Andover, MA 01845 RE: 510-530 Turnpike St., North Andover, MA Dear Ms. Parrino: We are entering the final phase of the 510-530 Turnpike St. remodeling- construction project. The approved Site Plan, a portion of a copy of which is enclosed, shows two islands directly behind 510 Turnpike St. Although these islands are not specified as curbs, I would like to have this issue clarified so as to have these areas painted rather than curbed to facilitate snow plowing and removal. Thanks for reviewing this request. Sincerely, ohn . McGar �aR�N Town of North Andover 0 M1YLFO ,6 qry Office of the Planning Department Community Development and Services Division b r 27 Charles Street 'ti °R4Tia[�rF 4y North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �ssacKus�t httl2://www.townof-northandover.com Town Planner. iparriiio a towaiohiortha tdover.cout P (978)688-9535 Julie Pan-ino F (978)688-9542 March 24, 2004 John F. McGarry 401 Andover Street North Andover,MA 01845 RE: Site Plan Special Permit for 510-530 Turnpike Street Dear Mr. McGarry: This letter is in regard to your request to remove curbing associated with two islands, adjacent to the parking lot, located along the northern property boundary behind building#510. In lieu of curbing,you have proposed to paint the islands to facilitate snow plowing and removal. A Site Plan Special Permit was issued by the North + Andover Planning Board on February 21, 2003, for modifications to an existing building,in addition to modifications to the parking lot. Your request was informally discussed at the March 23, 2004 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board agreed to allow removal of the curbing associated with the islands with the following conditions: 1. The islands can be paved and are required to be painted/striped. 2. The islands must be landscaped with planters in the spring, summer and fall months. 3. Landscaping originally approved in the two islands consisted of the planning of 4 Bradford Callery Pear trees. The landscaping plan proposed along the frontage of Route 114 must be enhanced to mitigate for the loss of plantings proposed in the two islands. An enhancement planting plan must be submitted to the Town Planner for review and approval, no later than June 1, 2004. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact. Thank you. Sincerely, f 3uliAParrino,Town Planner cc: Planning Board Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director file BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 05/26/2004 10:29 M 978 685 7878 Coolidge Construction Co U 001 NaMom.MA 01845 Cocos= Phone:978486.1111 Fax 97M85°7878 Fm Tod Jude Parrino,Town Planner From John F. McGarry Fox: 978-688-9542 May 26,2004 Phom 978-N8-9535 P89M. 1 Re: 510.530 Turnpike St,NO.Andover act ®UqFMt 13 Foy Revisw 0 Piewe comment ®R a Reply 0 Pl RacYcle Hi Julie, 1 just vmnted to oonfirm that you will call me next vMek to meet at 510-630 Tumpike 5t.W review the landscaping that has been oomplethd, and that a de6ermination will be made at that Larne whe9w any aft ional "enhancement planting"will be necessary. Thanks. Sincerely AnF. r7yr Planning Board Site Inspection Sheet Date: Permit: 'Watershed DeE Subdivision Issued: .�Llzll 1 If Address: J' ,`50 Agent/Representative/Owner Present: Findings: P 1.4 e,91 Z, .2 '24101, e? S 'h ee,� 10 42 f/4 ov 4, he X, 71( Ah� ".4 k 4 i MEMORANDUM TO: North Andover Planning Board FROM: Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Director RE: 530 Turnpike Street—Office Building DATE: January 15, 2003 As the Planning Board has viewed this application at the last hearing, I will briefly summarize outstanding issues on the plan: 1. EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: A parking easement is provided to the rear of the abutting lot where the applicant proposes to place 25 parking spaces. The Planning Board should request an easement providing for the authorization of such parking as these spaces are proposed to be on a lot contiguous to the property. 2. ZONING INFORMATION: Numerous zoning issues exist on the revised plan as proposed. Evidently, the applicant's attorney, Howard Speicher, has indicated he will be applying to the Zoning Board for variances. I am enclosing the Building Commissioner's zoning denial for relative to this application. It appears that the items mostly in debate relate to the required amount of parking spaces, the required 25' unobstructed driveway lane, and the inability to determine the amount of parking spaces required due to the fact that one of the buildings does not have a specified use. Also, there are numerous parking spaces proposed within the first 100' of Route 114. The zoning bylaw requires that the first 50' of this 100' shall be utilized as an effective visual buffer and no parking shall be permitted. This plan blatantly violates this requirement of the Zoning Bylaw. Furthermore, it is impossible to ascertain whether or not that parking would be needed as the remainder of the intended use of the medical building is not specified. The proposed medical use will not occupy the entire building. However, as the Planning Board is unaware of what the remainder of the intended use of the building will be, it makes it difficult for a thorough review to be completed. From a practical standpoint, parking calculations are difficult to estimate — for example, even if we were to calculate the most intensive use allowed on the site, other questions arise such as "Will the use require a loading area/dock? Will the use realistically result in overcrowding of the site and/or is ample parking really being provided? What will the building's hours of operation be and what impact will that have on the utilization of the parking as it relates to the remainder of the site? As you can see, evaluation of the site plan as a whole becomes more complicated with this unknown use. 3. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: The applicant revised the plans but did not send them to the Town's consulting engineer. I called the applicant's engineer today and requested he send them; he was under the impression the Planning Department would send them, so the Planning Board won't have a review fi-om VHB until the February 4, 2003 meeting. 4. LOCATION OF PARKING/WALKWAYS: At the last Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board requested that the applicant consider a walkway to connect between this property and the property in the rear. I do not see provisions for this walkway on the revised plans, the applicant should specify their intentions to do so. 5. LOCATION OF ROADWAYS/DRIVES: The parking lot contains a mixture of two- way and one-way travel lanes, most of which are the required 25'. However, the one- way travel lane to the right of the property only contains 13.5 feet of pavement for travel as the remainder of that lane is utilized for parking spaces. I am enclosing a copy of a memorandum from the Fire Department dated January 9, 2003 stating that this proposed width is unacceptable and they require a turning radius and/or minimum of 25'. The plans need to be revised to accommodate this required 25' travel lane. &. OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREAS: There is no outdoor storage being proposed. However, I do not see a location for snow storage and this should be provided. The site does not provide for a large amount of room due to the numerous parking spaces required to meet the uses. Snow storage must be indicated. / 7. LANDSCAPING PLAN: The landscaping and lighting plan on Sheet G-2 notes that J "new landscaping planting beds with plant and ground cover (size and species varies) are being proposed. There is no way to ascertain whether or not these proposed varying size and species of plan and ground cover comply with the zoning bylaw. How can the Planning Board determine if the plantings will be four feet high at the time of planting and will be expected to form a year round impervious screen at least five feet high within three years if the plantings are not identified? The applicant needs to specify the types of plantings being proposed in order to determine conformance with the zoning bylaw. 8. REFUSE AREAS: The dumpsters are located behind the 510 Turnpike Street building and are enclosed. The Planning Board should verify if these dumpsters will be enough to accommodate refuse for both buildings. C����wLk w1 ova U 9. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: Enclosed please find a memorandum dated 1/14/03 from the Lieutenant John Carney of the Police Department requesting that a traffic impact study be performed. The Police Department is particularly concerned with exiting left out of this complex. 1 would recommend that the applicant submit a traffic impact study directly to VHB for their review. COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: VHB has pointed out that since the applicant is altering the existing driveway on Route 114, the applicant should secure a State Highway Access Perm. k3xior to construction.